CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Goli Satyanarayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
G. Mahesh – Respondent
ORDER (COMMON )
All these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of the orders passed in the petitions filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed documents in the lis to the expert for examination and for his opinion.
2. Since common question of law whether an order passed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is an interlocutory order attracting the bar under sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. to maintain a revision under sub-section (1) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is involved in all these Criminal Revision Cases, they are taken up together for consideration of the said preliminary question relating to maintainability of revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C., and these Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners in all these Criminal Revision Cases are the accused in complaints filed against them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed on the ground that the cheques issued by them towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability were dishonoured. During the pendency of the trial of the said cases, the revision petitioners have filed petitions in all the said cases respe
Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra
Girish Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I. (3) (2017) 14 SCC 809: 2017 (3) Crimes 96 (Para 8) – Relied.
Repalle Krishna Murthy v. Uppalla Nagendramma (4) 2018 (1) ALT (Cri) 97 (AP) (Para 25) – Assented.
T. Rajalingam @ Sambam v. State of Telangana
N. Muniswamy Reddy v. M. Narayanaswam
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.